Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2016 Dec 14;11(12):e0168403.
doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0168403. eCollection 2016.

Choosing Important Health Outcomes for Comparative Effectiveness Research: An Updated Review and Identification of Gaps

Sarah L Gorst  1 , Elizabeth Gargon  1 , Mike Clarke  2 , Valerie Smith  3 , Paula R Williamson  1
Affiliations

Choosing Important Health Outcomes for Comparative Effectiveness Research: An Updated Review and Identification of Gaps

Sarah L Gorst et al. PLoS One. .

Abstract

Background: The COMET (Core Outcome Measures in Effectiveness Trials) Initiative promotes the development and application of core outcome sets (COS), including relevant studies in an online database. In order to keep the database current, an annual search of the literature is undertaken. This study aimed to update a previous systematic review, in order to identify any further studies where a COS has been developed. Furthermore, no prioritization for COS development has previously been undertaken, therefore this study also aimed to identify COS relevant to the world's most prevalent health conditions.

Methods: The methods used in this updated review followed the same approach used in the original review and the previous update. A survey was also sent to the corresponding authors of COS identified for inclusion in this review, to ascertain what lessons they had learnt from developing their COS. Additionally, the COMET database was searched to identify COS that might be relevant to the conditions with the highest global prevalence.

Results: Twenty-five reports relating to 22 new studies were eligible for inclusion in the review. Further improvements were identified in relation to the description of the scope of the COS, use of the Delphi technique, and the inclusion of patient participants within the development process. Additionally, 33 published and ongoing COS were identified for 13 of the world's most prevalent conditions.

Conclusion: The development of a reporting guideline and minimum standards should contribute towards future improvements in development and reporting of COS. This study has also described a first approach to identifying gaps in existing COS, and to priority setting in this area. Important gaps have been identified, on the basis of global burden of disease, and the development and application of COS in these areas should be considered a priority.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

MC and PRW are members of the COMET Management Group and coapplicants on grants to support COMET and related work. EG is a member of the COMET Management Group and is the COMET Project Co-ordinator. This does not alter the authors' adherence to PLOS ONE policies on sharing data and materials.

Figures

Fig 1
Fig 1. Identification of studies.
Fig 2
Fig 2. Year of first publication of each COS study (n = 249).
See this image and copyright information in PMC

References

    1. Sox HC, Greenfield S. Comparative effectiveness research: a report from the Institute of Medicine. Ann Intern Med. 2009;151(3):203–205. - PubMed
    1. Williamson PR, Altman DG, Blazeby JM, Clarke M, Devane D, Gargon E, et al. Developing core outcome sets for clinical trials: issues to consider. Trials. 2012;13:132 10.1186/1745-6215-13-132 - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Glasziou P, Altman DG, Bossuyt P, Boutron I, Clarke M, Julious S, et al. Reducing waste from incomplete or unusable reports of biomedical research. Lancet. 2014;383:267–276. 10.1016/S0140-6736(13)62228-X - DOI - PubMed
    1. Gargon E, Gurung B, Medley N, Altman DG, Blazeby JM, Clarke M, et al. Choosing important health outcomes for comparative effectiveness research: a systematic review. PLoS ONE. 2014;9(6):e99111 10.1371/journal.pone.0099111 - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Gorst SL, Gargon E, Clarke M, Blazeby JM, Altman DG, Williamson PR. Choosing important health outcomes for comparative effectiveness research: an updated review and user survey [published online January 19, 2016]. PLoS ONE. - PMC - PubMed

Publication types

MeSH terms

LinkOut - more resources